Soviet Historiography under Khrushchev and Brezhnev: A Study of the Political Motives and Consequences of Rewriting History in Soviet Russia, 1956-1974

# Rewriting History in Soviet Russia: The Politics of Revisionist Historiography, 1956-1974 ## Introduction History is not a fixed and objective reality, but a dynamic and contested field of interpretation and representation. How history is written, taught, and remembered reflects the interests, values, and ideologies of those who produce and consume it. History can also be rewritten, revised, or manipulated to serve political purposes, especially in authoritarian regimes that seek to legitimize their power and control public opinion. This article explores how history was rewritten in Soviet Russia between 1956 and 1974, a period that witnessed significant political and social changes in the communist state. It examines what revisionist historiography is, why Soviet leaders rewrote history, how they rewrote history, and what were the consequences of rewriting history. It also analyzes how the historical discourse changed during the Thaw period (1956-1964), when Nikita Khrushchev initiated a process of de-Stalinization and liberalization, and during the Brezhnev era (1964-1974), when Leonid Brezhnev reversed many of Khrushchev's reforms and restored a more conservative and orthodox version of Soviet history. ## What is revisionist historiography? Revisionist historiography is a term that refers to the practice of challenging or revising established or dominant interpretations of historical events or periods. Revisionism can be motivated by various factors, such as new evidence, new perspectives, new methodologies, or new ideologies. Revisionism can also be positive or negative, depending on whether it aims to correct errors or biases, or to distort or falsify historical facts. In the context of Soviet Russia, revisionist historiography was mainly driven by ideological and political motives. Soviet leaders used history as a tool to justify their policies, to shape public opinion, to mobilize support, to discredit opponents, and to construct a national identity. They also used history as a weapon to attack their enemies, both internal and external. As a result, Soviet history was constantly rewritten to reflect the changing needs and interests of the ruling elite. ## Why did Soviet leaders rewrite history? Soviet leaders rewrote history for several reasons. First, they wanted to legitimize their authority and succession. After the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, his successors faced the challenge of filling the power vacuum and establishing their legitimacy. They also had to deal with the legacy of Stalinism, which was marked by terror, repression, purges, cult of personality, and economic failures. By rewriting history, they could either distance themselves from or associate themselves with Stalin's policies and achievements. Second, they wanted to adapt to changing domestic and international circumstances. Between 1956 and 1974,

Soviet Russia experienced significant social and economic transformations, such as urbanization, industrialization, education, consumerism, and cultural diversity. It also faced various challenges and conflicts in its relations with other communist countries (such as China and Yugoslavia), with the capitalist West (such as the United States and Western Europe), and with the developing world (such as Cuba, Vietnam, and Egypt). By rewriting history, they could either embrace or reject the new trends and realities, and present themselves as progressive or conservative, as peaceful or militant, as cooperative or confrontational. Third, they wanted to influence the collective memory and identity of the Soviet people. History plays a crucial role in shaping how people understand themselves, their past, their present, and their future. By rewriting history, Soviet leaders could either reinforce or redefine the core values and principles of the Soviet system, such as socialism, communism, patriotism, internationalism, and class struggle. They could also either celebrate or suppress the diversity and complexity of the Soviet society, such as its ethnic, religious, regional, and generational differences. ## How did they rewrite history? Soviet leaders rewrote history in various ways. They used different media and platforms to disseminate their historical narratives, such as textbooks, newspapers, journals, books, films, monuments, museums, and ceremonies. They also used different methods and techniques to manipulate historical facts and interpretations, such as censorship, propaganda, fabrication, omission, exaggeration, distortion, and glorification. One of the most common ways of rewriting history was to change the role and image of historical figures. Depending on their political agenda, Soviet leaders could either praise or condemn, elevate or demote, honor or erase certain individuals from history. For example, Stalin was alternately portrayed as a great leader and a tyrant, as a genius and a criminal, as a hero and a villain. Similarly, other figures such as Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev were subjected to various revisions and evaluations throughout Soviet history. Another common way of rewriting history was to change the interpretation and evaluation of historical events and periods. Depending on their political agenda, Soviet leaders could either emphasize or downplay, justify or criticize, celebrate or mourn certain aspects of history. For example,

the October Revolution was alternately presented as a glorious achievement and a tragic mistake, as a popular uprising and a coup d'etat, as a source of inspiration and a cause of suffering. Similarly, other events such as the Civil War, the collectivization, the industrialization, the Great Purge, the Great Patriotic War (World War II), the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Prague Spring, and the Afghan War were subjected to various revisions and evaluations throughout Soviet history. ## What were the consequences of rewriting history? Rewriting history had significant consequences for Soviet Russia and its people. On one hand,

rewriting history could have some positive effects. It could help Soviet leaders to cope with the challenges and changes of their time. It could also help Soviet people to learn from their mistakes and achievements. It could also foster a sense of pride and solidarity among the Soviet citizens. On the other hand, rewriting history could have some negative effects. It could undermine the credibility and integrity of Soviet historiography. It could also create confusion and disillusionment among the Soviet people. It could also provoke resistance and dissent from those who disagreed with or challenged the official version of history. ## The Thaw Period (1956-1964) The Thaw period was a time of de-Stalinization and liberalization in Soviet Russia under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev. It was characterized by political reforms, cultural openness, ideological diversity, and international cooperation. ### The impact of Khrushchev's secret speech One of the most important events that marked the beginning of the Thaw period was Khrushchev's secret speech at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in February 1956. In his speech,

Khrushchev denounced Stalin's crimes and cult of personality. He revealed some of the atrocities committed by Stalin's regime against millions of innocent people. He also criticized some of Stalin's policies that led to economic failures and diplomatic blunders. Khrushchev's speech had a profound impact on Soviet society and historiography. It shattered the myth of Stalin's infallibility and benevolence. It also opened up a space for debate and criticism of Stalinism. It also encouraged a revision of Soviet history that aimed to restore truth and justice. ### The emergence of new historical narratives As a result of Khrushchev's speech,

a new wave of historical research and writing emerged in Soviet Russia. Some historians began to challenge or revise some of the established or dominant interpretations of Soviet history. They also began to explore some of the neglected or suppressed topics or perspectives in Soviet history. For example, - Lenin was not a dogmatic or authoritarian leader, but a flexible and democratic one. They also argued that Lenin's original vision of socialism was distorted or betrayed by Stalin and his followers. - Some historians began to rehabilitate some of the victims of Stalin's purges. They argued that many of them were innocent or loyal communists who were unjustly accused or executed. They also argued that some of them made valuable contributions to Soviet history and culture. - Some historians began to acknowledge some of the achievements and failures of Stalin's era. They argued that Stalin's industrialization and collectivization had some positive effects on Soviet economy and society, but also had some negative effects on human rights and environment. They also argued that Stalin's role in World War II was not as decisive or heroic as previously claimed, but also involved some errors and crimes. - Some historians began to explore some of the aspects of Soviet history that were previously ignored or marginalized. They argued that Soviet history was not a monolithic or homogeneous entity, but a diverse and complex one. They also argued that Soviet history was not only shaped by the actions of the leaders, but also by the experiences and voices of the masses. ### The challenges of de-Stalinization However, the revision of Soviet history during the Thaw period was not an easy or smooth process. It faced many challenges and obstacles from various sources.

One of the challenges was the resistance from the conservative or orthodox factions within the Communist Party and the state apparatus. They opposed Khrushchev's reforms and denounced his speech as a betrayal of Stalin and socialism. They also tried to prevent or suppress any criticism or revision of Stalinism. They also tried to restore or defend some of the aspects of Stalin's legacy and policies. Another challenge was the lack of access to reliable or complete sources and archives. Many of the documents or records related to Soviet history were either destroyed, falsified, or classified by Stalin's regime. Many of the witnesses or survivors of Soviet history were either dead, silenced, or intimidated by Stalin's regime. Therefore, many historians had to rely on incomplete, inaccurate, or biased sources and archives. Another challenge was the difficulty of balancing between truth and propaganda, between criticism and loyalty, between freedom and censorship. Many historians had to face

the dilemma of how to write history in a way that was honest and objective, but also respectful and patriotic. They also had to face the risk of being accused or persecuted for deviating from or violating the official line or ideology. They also had to face the pressure of conforming to or pleasing the expectations or demands of their readers or authorities. ## The Brezhnev Era (1964-1974) The Brezhnev era was a time of stagnation and conservatism in Soviet Russia under the leadership of Leonid Brezhnev. It was characterized by political repression, cultural isolation, ideological orthodoxy, and international confrontation. ### The reversal of de-Stalinization One of the most important events that marked the end of the Thaw period and the beginning of the Brezhnev era was Khrushchev's ouster from power in October 1964. He was replaced by a collective leadership headed by Brezhnev, who gradually consolidated his authority and influence over Soviet politics. Brezhnev reversed many of Khrushchev's reforms and policies. He restored some of the features and practices of Stalinism, such as centralization, bureaucracy, censorship, propaganda, cult of personality, and purges. He also revised Soviet history to reflect his conservative and orthodox agenda. ### The suppression of dissenting voices of Brezhnev's revision of Soviet history, a new wave of historical dissent and opposition emerged in Soviet Russia. Some historians began to challenge or resist some of the established or dominant interpretations of Soviet history. They also began to expose or reveal some of the hidden or forbidden topics or perspectives in Soviet history. For example, - Some historians began to criticize Brezhnev's role and legacy in Soviet history. They argued that Brezhnev was a mediocre and corrupt leader, who led the Soviet Union into a state of decline and decay. They also argued that Brezhnev's policies were harmful and ineffective, both domestically and internationally. - Some historians began to defend Khrushchev's role and legacy in Soviet history. They argued that Khrushchev was a visionary and reformist leader, who tried to modernize and humanize the Soviet system. They also argued that Khrushchev's policies were beneficial and successful, both domestically and internationally. - Some historians began to explore some of the aspects of Soviet history that were previously banned or censored. They argued that Soviet history was not a glorious or heroic saga, but a tragic or shameful one. They also argued that Soviet history was not only marked by achievements and victories, but also by failures and crimes. ### The glorification of the Soviet past However, the dissenting voices in Soviet historiography were largely suppressed or silenced by Brezhnev's regime. Brezhnev used various means and methods to control and manipulate historical discourse and memory.

One of the means was to glorify and celebrate the Soviet past. Brezhnev launched a series of campaigns and events to commemorate and honor some of the milestones and figures in Soviet history. He also promoted a series of narratives and images to portray the Soviet past as a source of pride and inspiration. For example, - Brezhnev celebrated the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution in 1967, the 100th anniversary of Lenin's birth in 1970, the 50th anniversary of the founding of the USSR in 1972, and the 30th anniversary of the victory in World War II in 1975. He used these occasions to praise the achievements and contributions of the Soviet people and leaders in building socialism and communism. - Brezhnev promoted a narrative of the Great Patriotic War as the most glorious and heroic chapter in Soviet history. He emphasized the role and sacrifice of the Soviet people and army in defeating Nazi Germany and saving humanity from fascism. He also emphasized his own role and experience as a participant and commander in the war. - Brezhnev promoted an image

of himself as a successor and guardian of Stalin's legacy. He restored some of Stalin's symbols and honors, such as his portrait, his medals, his mausoleum, and his name. He also defended some of Stalin's policies and actions, such as his industrialization, collectivization, purges, and war leadership. ## Conclusion In conclusion, this article has explored how history was rewritten in Soviet Russia between 1956 and 1974. It has examined what revisionist historiography is, why Soviet leaders rewrote history, how they rewrote history, and what were the consequences of rewriting history. It has also analyzed how the historical discourse changed during the Thaw period (1956-1964), when Nikita Khrushchev initiated a process of de-Stalinization and liberalization, and during the Brezhnev era (1964-1974), when Leonid Brezhnev reversed many of Khrushchev's reforms and restored a more conservative and orthodox version of Soviet history. ### Summary of main points The main points of this article are: - History is not a fixed and objective reality, but a dynamic and contested field of interpretation and representation. - History can be rewritten, revised, or manipulated to serve political purposes, especially in authoritarian regimes that seek to legitimize their power and control public opinion. - and succession, to adapt to changing domestic and international circumstances, and to influence the collective memory and identity of the Soviet people. - Soviet leaders rewrote history in various ways, such as by changing the role and image of historical figures, by changing the interpretation and evaluation of historical events and periods, and by using different media and platforms to disseminate their historical narratives. - Rewriting history had significant consequences for Soviet Russia and its people. It could have some positive effects, such as helping Soviet leaders to cope with the challenges and changes of their time, helping Soviet people to learn from their mistakes and achievements, and fostering a sense of pride and solidarity among the Soviet citizens. It could also have some negative effects, such as undermining the credibility and integrity of Soviet historiography, creating confusion and disillusionment among the Soviet people, and provoking resistance and dissent from those who disagreed with or challenged the official version of history. - The historical discourse changed during the Thaw period (1956-1964), when Nikita Khrushchev initiated a process of de-Stalinization and liberalization in Soviet Russia. He denounced Stalin's crimes and cult of personality, he encouraged a revision of Soviet history that aimed to restore truth and justice, and he faced many challenges and obstacles from the conservative or orthodox factions within the Communist Party and the state apparatus, from the lack of access to reliable or complete sources and archives, and from the difficulty of balancing between truth and propaganda, between criticism and loyalty, between freedom and censorship. - The historical discourse changed during the Brezhnev era (1964-1974), when Leonid Brezhnev reversed many of Khrushchev's reforms and policies in Soviet Russia. He restored some of the features and practices of Stalinism, he revised Soviet history to reflect his conservative and orthodox agenda, and he suppressed or silenced many dissenting voices in Soviet historiography. He also glorified and celebrated the Soviet past, especially the Great Patriotic War (World War II) and Stalin's legacy. ### Implications for the present and future and future of Russia and the world. It shows how history can be used or abused for political ends, and how history can affect or reflect the social and cultural identity of a nation and its people. It also shows how history can be a source of conflict or dialogue, of division or reconciliation, of hatred or understanding. For Russia, the revision of Soviet history poses some challenges and opportunities. On one hand, it challenges Russia to confront and acknowledge its past, both the positive and the negative aspects. It also challenges Russia to reconcile and integrate its diverse and complex historical experiences and perspectives. On the other hand, it offers Russia an opportunity to learn and benefit from its past, both the mistakes and achievements. It also offers Russia an opportunity to share and communicate its historical narratives and values with other countries and cultures. For the world, the revision of Soviet history poses some questions and lessons. On one hand, it questions how the world views and remembers Soviet history, both the positive and the negative aspects. It also questions how the world relates and interacts with Russia and its historical legacy. On the other hand, it teaches how the world can learn and benefit from Soviet history, both the mistakes and achievements. It also teaches how the world can cooperate and dialogue with Russia and its historical narratives and values. ## FAQs Here are some frequently asked questions about the revision of Soviet history between 1956 and 1974: - Q: What is the difference between de-Stalinization and destalinization? - A: De-Stalinization